Fictitious Non-Fiction
The first in a sequence of five essays over different facets of the life and writings of Mr. William Shakespeare. This one specifically deals with Shakespeare’s incorporation of history in his plays.
Taylor Williams
Dr. Ditmore
Shakespeare
31 October 2004
Fictitious Non-Fiction
History, it has always been said, and acknowledged, is written by the winners. Most of our understanding of the era of Christ comes from the conquering Romans. It is the allies, not the axis, which we look to for our accounts of the order of battle from World War II. What then, shall we say about history as entertainment? Modern cinema looks to history as a common subject, often with great success, however, it is dangerous to look at a historical film and consider it an accurate account of history. William Shakespeare wrote many plays that are now categorized as history plays, however it is equally as dangerous to consider his theatrical productions as historical truth, a fact that is often lost as it is easy to view Shakespeare as a contemporary of the historical figures he immortalizes in his plays. A misconception that is faulty, and would greatly skew a person’s view of events accounted in his plays.
Kastan emphasizes that, “The fact that Shakespeare has served many as a source of historical knowledge does not make him a historian.” (Kastan, 174) It is extremely important for Shakespeare’s audience, be it contemporary or modern, to understand that he is not a writer of history but rather a writer of theatrical entertainment. His intent in creating his plays was not to provide a perfect account of the events of the past. Indeed, it would not be possible to do so, seeing as how even one, solitary man speed reading a single account could not accomplish this task in the time span a play consumes. No, Shakespeare was writing entertainment, he was attempting to awe audiences with the greatness or villainy of their past. Kaston elaborates on this point by stressing that, “no single model of history emerges from the plays.” (Kastan 175) What he means by this is that historians have a tendency to subscribe to a single model of history, God as victor for example. Shakespeare’s work actually has a tendency to pull multiple models in together and little residue of the models used in one play will resound in the next. This point merely adds credence to the purely empirical understanding of Shakespeare as an entertainer. Shakespeare could not have completely abandoned the major historical facts in his portrayal of events however. “The pressure of historical fact is heavy upon him in these plays, if only because the broad outlines of the history would be generally known,” (Kastan 175) explains Kastan. Due to the fact that his audiences would have known at least the most general facts about the events his plays dwell on, Shakespeare would have had to adhere to some sense of history in his plays, or at least ensure that the audience is flattered by his omissions. Kastan looks into this idea closer with an analysis of two of Shakespeare’s better know history plays; Richard III and Henry V.
The main point of divergence between confirmed historical truth and Shakespeare’s portrayal in Richard III is the deformities of Richard himself. Kastan enlightens those who might read his article by explaining of Richard, “He is as much a creature of fiction as of fact. He is not so much cheated of feature by dissembling nature as he is the recipient of feature from an assembling history, which, out of the facts it finds in the past, makes the history it needs in the present.” (Kastan 180) According to history, Richard may or may not have been such an incredibly disfigured man, but Shakespeare uses the idea that he might have been to build the character in his play. Also, “Queen Margaret’s bitter choric presence in Richard III is Shakespeare’s creation, as she had returned to France in 1476 and indeed had died by the time of his ascension.” (Kastan 175) The inclusion of the Queen in the play is an obvious attempt by Shakespeare to influence his audience’s emotions, and an exceptionally clear break from confirmed history.
In Henry V the largest way Shakespeare bends history to his will is with the simple omission of events at the quantity of multiple years at a time. “Henry died in 1422 of an illness contracted during the long siege of Meaux in the winter of 1421-2, having failed to subdue the Dauphin’s forces, and indeed having failed even to outlive the French King Charles and so never in truth becoming King of France.” (Kastan 177) In creating the stage play to represent the life of King Henry V, Shakespeare decided to glorify his actions. In order to do that, he takes the story up to a certain point, skipping many years to get there, and then leaves off without addressing the tragedy that accompanies the end of his life. Shakespeare also uses omissions within the order for the Battle of Agincourt to bring enhanced glory to his protagonist. Though it is true that the English arose victorious in the battle against overwhelming odds, “The historical sources, however, report that the improbable victory was gained in large part by superior military strategy.” (Kastan 176) The English used pikes and their much better archery mechanics to defend their troops against French cavalry and bring the battle into a closer hand-to-hand fashion. At the end of the battle the English loss of men is described as four nobles “and of all other men but five-and-twenty.” (Shakespeare IV.viii.99-100) Kastan notes that other, more reliable sources put the English death toll closer to six hundred. This is important because it illuminates that even as Shakespeare gives us very precise numbers, those are only useful to give credence to his story. One final deviant from truth, and something that Shakespeare is well known for, is the addition of characters that have little base in reality. For Henry V the added character was Falstaff. Though Falstaff was probably based on a real person, the name has been changed, and the personality Shakespeare attributes him has also been heavily altered.
A person accepting Shakespeare as historical fact would, or at least should, be greeted with the same dismissal as someone who claims that Apocalypse Now is a perfect portrayal of America’s involvement in Vietnam. Shakespeare however, has an aura about him in modern literature that he can do no wrong, and from that mystical characteristic attributed to the man, many people do sidestep the facts, and accept his histories as truth. I only hope that four hundred years from now The Matrix: Revolutions is not what the general populace accepts as an accurate portrayal of modern life in the 21st century.
Works Cited:
1) Greenblatt, Stephen; Cohen, Walter; Howard, Jean E.; Maus Katharine Eisaman, eds. The Norton Shakespeare. London: Castle House, 1997
2) Kaston, David Scott. “Shakespeare and English History.” The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. Grazia, Margreta de, and Wells, Stanley. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge Press, 2001.
Taylor Williams
Dr. Ditmore
Shakespeare
31 October 2004
Fictitious Non-Fiction
History, it has always been said, and acknowledged, is written by the winners. Most of our understanding of the era of Christ comes from the conquering Romans. It is the allies, not the axis, which we look to for our accounts of the order of battle from World War II. What then, shall we say about history as entertainment? Modern cinema looks to history as a common subject, often with great success, however, it is dangerous to look at a historical film and consider it an accurate account of history. William Shakespeare wrote many plays that are now categorized as history plays, however it is equally as dangerous to consider his theatrical productions as historical truth, a fact that is often lost as it is easy to view Shakespeare as a contemporary of the historical figures he immortalizes in his plays. A misconception that is faulty, and would greatly skew a person’s view of events accounted in his plays.
Kastan emphasizes that, “The fact that Shakespeare has served many as a source of historical knowledge does not make him a historian.” (Kastan, 174) It is extremely important for Shakespeare’s audience, be it contemporary or modern, to understand that he is not a writer of history but rather a writer of theatrical entertainment. His intent in creating his plays was not to provide a perfect account of the events of the past. Indeed, it would not be possible to do so, seeing as how even one, solitary man speed reading a single account could not accomplish this task in the time span a play consumes. No, Shakespeare was writing entertainment, he was attempting to awe audiences with the greatness or villainy of their past. Kaston elaborates on this point by stressing that, “no single model of history emerges from the plays.” (Kastan 175) What he means by this is that historians have a tendency to subscribe to a single model of history, God as victor for example. Shakespeare’s work actually has a tendency to pull multiple models in together and little residue of the models used in one play will resound in the next. This point merely adds credence to the purely empirical understanding of Shakespeare as an entertainer. Shakespeare could not have completely abandoned the major historical facts in his portrayal of events however. “The pressure of historical fact is heavy upon him in these plays, if only because the broad outlines of the history would be generally known,” (Kastan 175) explains Kastan. Due to the fact that his audiences would have known at least the most general facts about the events his plays dwell on, Shakespeare would have had to adhere to some sense of history in his plays, or at least ensure that the audience is flattered by his omissions. Kastan looks into this idea closer with an analysis of two of Shakespeare’s better know history plays; Richard III and Henry V.
The main point of divergence between confirmed historical truth and Shakespeare’s portrayal in Richard III is the deformities of Richard himself. Kastan enlightens those who might read his article by explaining of Richard, “He is as much a creature of fiction as of fact. He is not so much cheated of feature by dissembling nature as he is the recipient of feature from an assembling history, which, out of the facts it finds in the past, makes the history it needs in the present.” (Kastan 180) According to history, Richard may or may not have been such an incredibly disfigured man, but Shakespeare uses the idea that he might have been to build the character in his play. Also, “Queen Margaret’s bitter choric presence in Richard III is Shakespeare’s creation, as she had returned to France in 1476 and indeed had died by the time of his ascension.” (Kastan 175) The inclusion of the Queen in the play is an obvious attempt by Shakespeare to influence his audience’s emotions, and an exceptionally clear break from confirmed history.
In Henry V the largest way Shakespeare bends history to his will is with the simple omission of events at the quantity of multiple years at a time. “Henry died in 1422 of an illness contracted during the long siege of Meaux in the winter of 1421-2, having failed to subdue the Dauphin’s forces, and indeed having failed even to outlive the French King Charles and so never in truth becoming King of France.” (Kastan 177) In creating the stage play to represent the life of King Henry V, Shakespeare decided to glorify his actions. In order to do that, he takes the story up to a certain point, skipping many years to get there, and then leaves off without addressing the tragedy that accompanies the end of his life. Shakespeare also uses omissions within the order for the Battle of Agincourt to bring enhanced glory to his protagonist. Though it is true that the English arose victorious in the battle against overwhelming odds, “The historical sources, however, report that the improbable victory was gained in large part by superior military strategy.” (Kastan 176) The English used pikes and their much better archery mechanics to defend their troops against French cavalry and bring the battle into a closer hand-to-hand fashion. At the end of the battle the English loss of men is described as four nobles “and of all other men but five-and-twenty.” (Shakespeare IV.viii.99-100) Kastan notes that other, more reliable sources put the English death toll closer to six hundred. This is important because it illuminates that even as Shakespeare gives us very precise numbers, those are only useful to give credence to his story. One final deviant from truth, and something that Shakespeare is well known for, is the addition of characters that have little base in reality. For Henry V the added character was Falstaff. Though Falstaff was probably based on a real person, the name has been changed, and the personality Shakespeare attributes him has also been heavily altered.
A person accepting Shakespeare as historical fact would, or at least should, be greeted with the same dismissal as someone who claims that Apocalypse Now is a perfect portrayal of America’s involvement in Vietnam. Shakespeare however, has an aura about him in modern literature that he can do no wrong, and from that mystical characteristic attributed to the man, many people do sidestep the facts, and accept his histories as truth. I only hope that four hundred years from now The Matrix: Revolutions is not what the general populace accepts as an accurate portrayal of modern life in the 21st century.
Works Cited:
1) Greenblatt, Stephen; Cohen, Walter; Howard, Jean E.; Maus Katharine Eisaman, eds. The Norton Shakespeare. London: Castle House, 1997
2) Kaston, David Scott. “Shakespeare and English History.” The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. Grazia, Margreta de, and Wells, Stanley. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge Press, 2001.
posted by Taylor Williams at
10:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home